Visualizing the Molecular World – Design, Evaluation, and Use of Animations

  • Roy Tasker
  • Rebecca Dalton
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 3)

Abstract

The research literature clearly indicates that many student misconceptions in chemistry stem from an inability to visualize structures and processes at the molecular level. A selection of these misconceptions was targeted in the VisChem project by producing a suite of molecular-level animations. The animations were produced with care to balance the often-competing demands of scientific accuracy, technical constraints, and clarity of communication.

The effectiveness of a selection of these animations was evaluated when used in a conventional lecture context to assist students to build useful mental models of structures and processes at the molecular level. This research revealed that, if used appropriately, students perceived most of the intended ‘key features’ and incorporated them in their mental models. There was evidence that students could transfer their ideas to similar situations, but no evidence of transfer to new topics. This indicated that these key features were not ‘internalised’.

With this background we then embedded the animations as learning objects in learning activities, within a constructivist learning design. The VisChem Learning Design was developed to 1) motivate students to focus attention on the key features of their own prior mental model to explain test-tube level observations, 2) produce cognitive dissonance if their model fails, 3) actively look for new features in VisChem animations to reconcile any dissonance, and 4) then apply their refined model to new chemical topics.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, B. (1990a). Pupils conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12–16). In P. L. Lijnse, H. M. C. Eijkelhof, P. Licht, W. de Vos, & A. J. Waarlo (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomenon to microscopic particles (pp. 12–35). University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, B. (1990b). Pupil’s conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12–16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53–85.Google Scholar
  3. Atkins, P. (1999) Chemistry: the great ideas. Pure Applied Chemistry, 71(6), 927–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1987). Students’ visualisation of a chemical reaction. Education in Chemistry, 24(4), 117–120.Google Scholar
  5. Ben-Zvi, R., Silberstein, J., & Mamlok, R. (1990). Macro-micro relationships: a key to the world of chemistry. In P. L. Lijnse, H. M. C. Eijkelhof, P. Licht, W. de Vos, & A. J. Waarlo (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomenon to microscopic particles (pp. 183–197). University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Bergquist, W. and Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium. Journal of chemical Education, 67(12), 1000–1003.Google Scholar
  7. Bodner, G. M. (1991). I have found you an argument: the conceptual knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 385–388.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., & Bursten, B. E. (2006). Chemistry: The central science. 10th Ed. Pearson Education, Inc., NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Windschitl, M. A. (1998). Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(12), 1658–1661.Google Scholar
  10. Butts, B., & Smith, R. (1987). HSC Chemistry students’ understanding of the structure and properties of molecular and ionic compounds. Research in Science Education, 17, 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalton, R. M. (2003). The development of students’ mental models of chemical substances and processes at the molecular level. PhD Thesis, University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
  12. Dalton, R. M., & Tasker, R. F. (2006). Expert and novice interpretations of a Redox reaction: Comparison of participant narrations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  13. Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V. (1987). Understanding the particulate nature of matter. Journal of chemical Education, 64(8), 695–697.Google Scholar
  14. Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548–553.Google Scholar
  15. Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (2000). Improving introductory chemistry students’ ability to visualise the particulate basis of chemical reactions. Chemeda: Australian Journal of Chemical Education, 51, 52, 53, 45–56.Google Scholar
  16. Gorodetsky, M., & Gussarsky, E. (1986). On the concept ‘Chemical Equilibrium’: The associative framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 197–204.Google Scholar
  17. Greenbowe, T. J. (1994). An interactive multimedia software program for exploring electrochemical cells. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(7), 555–557.Google Scholar
  18. Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haidar, A. H., & Abraham, M. R. (1991). A comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 919–938.Google Scholar
  20. Hand B., Treagust D. F. (1997). Monitoring teacher’s referents for classroom practice using metaphors. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harper, B., O’Donoghue, J., Oliver, R., & Lockyer, L., (2001). New designs for Web-based learning environments. In C. Montgomerie, & J. Viteli (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001, World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications(pp. 674–675), Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, D. (1988). Misleading Illustrations. Research in Science Education, 18, 290–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinton, M. E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions, The Chemical Educator, 4, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro and microchemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377–379.Google Scholar
  25. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 7, 701–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, L., Jordon, K., & Stillings, N. (2001). Molecular visualisation in science education. Report Prepared for the 2001 Gordon Research Conference on Science Education and Visualisation,Arlington.Google Scholar
  27. Jones, L., & Tasker, R. (2002), CD, workbook, and web site. Bridging to the lab: media connecting chemistry concepts with practice. WH Freeman & Co., New York.See http://bcs.whfreeman.com/bridgingtothelab/ and view the free sample, last accessed on December 18, 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Kleinman, R. W., Griffin, H. C., & Kerner, N. K. (1987). Images in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 766–770.Google Scholar
  29. Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kozma, R. B., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding, In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl. (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 41–60). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Can final examinations amplify students’ misconceptions in chemistry? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 301–325.Google Scholar
  32. Lijnse, P. L., Licht, P., Waarlo, A. J., & de Vos, W. (Eds.). (1990). Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles. Proceedings of Conference at Utrecht centre for science and mathematics education. University of Utrecht, and references therein.*Google Scholar
  33. Lowe, R. (2001). Beyond ‘Eye-candy’: Improving learning with animations. Paper Presented at the Apple University Consortium Conference, Townsville.Google Scholar
  34. Milheim, W. D. (1993). How to use animation in computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191–196.Google Scholar
  36. Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 52–55.Google Scholar
  37. Nakhleh, M. B., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Conceptual learning vs. problem solving. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 190–192.Google Scholar
  38. Niaz, M. (1995). Relationship between student performance on conceptual and computational problems of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupils’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross-age study. Science Education, 65(2), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 508–510.Google Scholar
  41. Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children’s conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(9), 825–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pereira, M. P., & Pestana, M. E. M. (1991). Pupils’ representations of models of water. International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. (0000)Russell, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N. & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronised macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 330–334.Google Scholar
  44. Sanger, M. J., & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry: Current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(7), 819–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sanger, M. J., Phelps, A. J., & Fienhold, J. (2000). Using a computer animation to improve students’ conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11), 1517–1520.Google Scholar
  46. Sequeira, M., & Leite, L. (1990). On relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles at the junior high school level. In P. L. Lijnse, H. M. C. Eijkelhof, P. Licht, W. de Vos, & A. J. Waarlo (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomenon to microscopic particles (pp. 220–232). University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  47. Sleet, R. J. (1993). Attitudes and images in chemistry. In C. Fogliani (ed.), Australian chemistry resource book(pp. 53–63). Charles Sturt University-Mitchell.Google Scholar
  48. Taber, K. S. (1994). Misunderstanding the ionic bond. Education in Chemistry, 31, 100–102.Google Scholar
  49. Taber, K. S. (1997). Student understanding of ionic bonding: Molecular versus electrostatic framework? School Science Review, 78(285), 85–95.Google Scholar
  50. Tasker, R. (1992). Presenting a chemistry youth lecture. Chemistry in Australia, 59, 108–110.Google Scholar
  51. Tasker, R., Bucat, R., Sleet, R., & Chia, W. (1996). The VisChem project: Visualising chemistry with multimedia. Chemistry in Australia, 63, 395–397; and Chemistry in New Zealand, 60, 42–45.Google Scholar
  52. Tasker, R. (1999). CD for Chemistry: molecules, matter and change. In L. Jones & P. Atkins (4th ed.). New York: WH Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  53. Tasker, R. (2001). CD and Web Site for ChemCom — Chemistry in the community. An American Chemical Society Project. In H. Heikkinen (4th ed.), New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. See http://www.whfreeman.com/chemcom and go to ‘Interactive ChemCom Media for Instructors and Students’, Last accessed on December 18, 2005.Google Scholar
  54. Tasker, R., Dalton, R., Sleet, R., Bucat, B., Chia, W., & Corrigan, D. (2002). VisChem: visualising chemical structures and reactions at the molecular level to develop a deep understanding of chemistry concepts, Last accessed on December 18, 2005, from the Learning Designs Web site: http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD9/index.html.Google Scholar
  55. Tasker, R., Bell, J., & Cooper, M. (2003). Web Site for General Chemistry - an American Chemical Society Project. In J. Bell (ed.), New York: WH Freeman & Co. See http://www.whfreeman.com/acsgenchemhome/, click on ‘Web Companion’, last accessed on December 18, 2005.Google Scholar
  56. Tasker, R. (2004). Web Site for Chemical principles, the quest for insight. In P. Atkins & L. Jones (3rd ed.), New York: WH Freeman & Co. See http://www.whfreeman.com/chemicalprinciples/ and go to ‘Animations’, last accessed on December 18, 2005.Google Scholar
  57. Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 141–159.Google Scholar
  58. Velazquez-Marcano, A., Williamson, V. M., Ashkenazi, G., Tasker, R. F., & Williamson, K. C. (2004). The use of video demonstrations and particulate animation in general chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy Tasker
    • 1
  • Rebecca Dalton
  1. 1.University of Western SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations